The Supreme Court has quashed the preventive detention of Mulla Afroz under the National Security Act (NSA) in connection with the November 2024 Sambhal violence, ruling that the power of preventive detention had been illegally exercised. The court also imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh on the Uttar Pradesh government and set aside an Allahabad High Court order that had previously upheld the detention. The ruling has drawn sharp political reactions from opposition leaders who see it as an indictment of the state's law-enforcement conduct.

What the Supreme Court Ruled

The court's order came on a petition filed by Mulla Afroz, who was arrested in connection with violence that erupted in Sambhal in November 2024. The bench found the invocation of the NSA to be unlawful and, in an unusual step, imposed monetary costs on the state — a signal that the judiciary viewed the detention as more than a procedural lapse. By simultaneously setting aside the Allahabad High Court's endorsement of the detention, the Supreme Court effectively delivered a two-tier rebuke to the state administration.

Congress MP Imran Masood's Reaction

Congress MP Imran Masood underscored that the ruling went beyond a mere quashing of the detention order. 'It has not only been quashed. Please read the complete news. Along with quashing the NSA, a fine of ₹10 lakh has also been imposed on the state government,' he said. Masood warned that officials pursuing what he characterised as a partisan agenda risked personal legal consequences, adding: 'The agenda they are pursuing with their eyes closed will eventually lead to files reaching the Supreme Court and could send them behind bars.' He also signalled that a Saharanpur mosque case would follow a similar trajectory. Masood argued that demolishing mosques and targeting individuals on religious grounds violated the Indian Constitution — 'the same Constitution that gives you the authority to hold office also guarantees the protection of our rights,' he said.

Chandrashekhar Azad Calls ₹10 Lakh Fine Too Little

Aazad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram) president and Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad welcomed the ruling but argued the financial penalty was grossly inadequate. 'A ₹10 lakh fine is too little. The government and police send innocent people to jail on the government's orders, and when the judiciary imposes a fine on them, it is only ₹10 lakh. In my view, the fine should have been ₹10 crore,' he said. Azad further alleged that the NSA was being systematically deployed to suppress opposition voices, citing his own experience: 'I am sitting before you today after the government detained me under the NSA despite me being innocent. I was kept in jail for 16 months,' he said. He warned that public resistance would ultimately force a change of government.

Broader Context: NSA Use in UP Under Scrutiny

The Sambhal ruling is not an isolated instance of judicial pushback against preventive detention in Uttar Pradesh. Critics and civil liberties groups have long argued that the NSA — a colonial-era law allowing detention without trial for up to 12 months — has been disproportionately applied in communally sensitive cases in the state. The November 2024 Sambhal violence, triggered by a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, left several people dead and led to widespread arrests. This Supreme Court ruling adds to a growing body of orders questioning the legal basis of post-Sambhal detentions. The Uttar Pradesh government has not yet publicly responded to the court's cost imposition.

What Comes Next

The Supreme Court's cost order creates a precedent that could embolden petitioners in other pending NSA cases arising from the Sambhal and Saharanpur incidents. Legal observers note that the financial penalty, while symbolic in quantum, signals judicial willingness to hold state instrumentalities accountable. The Allahabad High Court will likely face renewed scrutiny of its initial order upholding the detention. Opposition parties are expected to raise the ruling in the ongoing session and use it to press the state government on its law-enforcement approach in communally sensitive areas.